Nuclear Power in America

Background

Nuclear
power has numerous potentials and seemingly magic answer to some of our
biggest questions. It is well-known that the American president does
not see the American way of life as negotiable, then how can we produce
the energy we “need” without producing more greenhouse
gases? What do we do when fossil fuels start to run out? How can we get
rid of dangerous, polluting coal plants? The answers: Nuclear energy
gives off no greenhouse gases and produces tremendous amounts of power.
The actual energy-process does not require fossil fuels. It is produced
by mining uranium which can be done domestically. Nuclear plants could
produce the power that is now created by coal plants, which would
become unnecessary. Right now in America, the 104 licensed plants
produce 788,528 million kWh (U.S. Census Bureau). That’s 19.9% of
all our produced energy, and nuclear technology is being
comprehensively researched and methods of production efficiency
improved.

In
order to be thorough about analyzing impact on the public, I will use a
categorization that Charles Perrow uses to denote strata of victims in
the case of nuclear mishaps in his book Normal Accidents.

First party:
“the operators of the system…those actually running the
system (nuclear plant operators, pilots, ship officers) [and] others in
attendance on regular shifts, such as first-level supervisors,
maintenance personnel...”(Perrow) and so on. These people, as a
rule, would be supporters of nuclear technology because it is the
source of their income. They work with it every day and feel that it
is, if not totally safe, fairly low-risk.
Higher dependence on nuclear energy would mean higher expectations of their workplaces.

with more than 30
countries that jointly represent two-thirds of the world's population
showing a sudden interest in nuclear power, the worry is that the
industry will not be able cope with the new demands on labour and raw
material. "For 20 years we've been asked to cut costs — we became
a skinny cow. Today we're being told to transform overnight into a fat
cow — to get moving and produce more," says Ludovic Devos of
Areva. "The real question is what the pace of the renaissance is, and
will the industry be able to keep up?" (Merali)

This is certainly a question that the American government and nuclear industry will have to take into consideration.

Second party:
“those associated with the system as suppliers or users, but
without influence over it. They are not innocent bystanders, because
they are aware (or could be informed) about their exposure, even though
such exposure may not be entirely voluntary” (Perrow). This
includes American energy consumers, which is a large population of the
public. In the short run, in any outcome of this controversy, the
public will continually have to pay more for energy in the future. If
coal-power stays, then potential new carbon taxes will drive costs up.
If either nuclear or renewable energy production rises, the cost will
also rise in order to pay for the changes that will need to take place
including implementation of more renewable or nuclear production sites,
although carbon taxes will not be an issue.

Third party:
“innocent bystanders [who] have no such involvement in the
system” (Perrow). This includes those people who do not use
energy or who produce energy through their own means. If nuclear power
rises and more plants are built, more public communities will be
situated near these plants and are in more danger of being affected by
an accident. They will benefit from any progress that is made with
regard to global climate change, but will also undergo any potential
negative impacts of slightly-increased radiation from regular nuclear
output/transportation as well as fatal or severe health impacts from
any nuclear accidents that occur.

Fourth party:

For the most part,
victims of radiation and toxic chemicals. They are fetuses being
carried at the time of exposure; the would-be children that damaged
parents will not be able to conceive; stillborn or deformed children
conceived after exposure; and all those people who will be contaminated
in the future by residual substances, including those substances that
will become concentrated as they move up the food chain. (Perrow)

This
is the most important group, and the most often forgotten. They are the
most important because they will be the ones to really deal with the
consequences of the choices that are made about energy production.
Whether they inherit a nuclear society, a renewable society or a
coal-powered, environmentally-altered society is dependent on the
outcome of this controversy. Whatever society they inherit could also
strongly influence the way they view energy consumption. If they come
into a nuclear society, they will continue to expect high consumption
of energy; if they inherit a society that relies heavily on renewable
energy sources, it is likely that the attitude towards consumption of
energy will change with a new encouragement towards its reduction,
because renewable energy cannot produce the same kind of numbers that
fossil-fuel and nuclear reaction can in terms of power.